[Click] Quick newbie questions

[Kurtis Heimerl]

Scratch all this, it was the DHCP thing. I guess it selected the virtual
DHCP server as the gateway, confusing everyone.

Thanks!

On 10/17/07, Kurtis Heimerl <munncha at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Alright, so that worked wonderfully. I now have a new problem that I've
> been banging my head against for the past few hours.
>
> Everyone is linked correctly, and on their own host only networks as seen
> in:
> http://www.vmware.com/support/ws5/doc/ws_net_configurations_hostonly.html
>
> There are four of these connected to the router, each with an ubuntu
> installation.
>
> Everyone can ping the router box, but they are unable to ping each other.
>
> I am unable to get click to work correctly. All systems are currently
> using dchp to get their IPs, but they're still semi-static as VMWare
> distributes them in a standard order.
>
> Here's my make-ip perl file
> http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~kheimerl/make-ip-conf.pl<http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/%7Ekheimerl/make-ip-conf.pl>
> and here's a TCPdump on the port click is listening on
> http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~kheimerl/output<http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/%7Ekheimerl/output>
> (router is all .128 sources, ubuntu is .129)
>
> click only outputs
> CheckIPHeader at 2:IP header check failed: bad source address
> and then one packet drop for each box i initialize.
>
> I'm assuming these are the DHCP packets.
>
> My intuition is that DHCP is somehow messing this up, but it doesn't
> really mesh. These boxes can ping each other, so the ubuntu ones should be
> informing click of their presence. Click should then be telling the ubuntu
> boxes that it has routes to the others.
>
> Any help would be appreciated. It's gotta be something really simple, I'm
> just new to this framework.
>
> Thanks!
>
> On 10/17/07, Kurtis Heimerl <munncha at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 10/17/07, Beyers Cronje <bcronje at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Kurtis
> > >
> > > I'm running in user-level as my application is only a proof of
> > > > concept, and
> > > > I've been unable to get insmod to load the kernel module correctly.
> > >
> > >
> > > You should always use 'click-install' to install the click kernel
> > > module and not insmod/modprobe. Follow the INSTALL file and you will get the
> > > kernel module working.
> > >
> >
> >
> > I'm using click-install as per the install file, but  it's not working.
> > I'm guessing it's that my kernel is a gentoo distro one. It compiled without
> > error, but the module loading is kicking out. With this as my intuition, I
> > could get a plain kernel and try it out, but since you say there's little
> > difference, it's probably not worth my time.
> >
> > Is there a default configuration for a simple IP router? There is a perl
> > > > script which generates an IP click config file, but it's seemingly
> > > > for
> > > > kernel mode only. I suppose I could modify it, but what i'm looking
> > > > for now
> > > > is a known working case to help me understand what's going on. I
> > > > can't seem
> > > > to find a default config for user space IP routing.
> > >
> > >
> > > From the 'make-ip-conf.pl' file:
> > > "
> > > # Make a Click IP router configuration.  This script generates a
> > > # configuration using PollDevices. You can change it to use
> > > # FromDevices; see the comment above the $ifs array, below.  The
> > > # output is intended for the Linux kernel module; however, by making
> > > # the change from PollDevices to FromDevices, and setting $local_host
> > > # appropriately, the configuration will also work at userlevel.
> > > "
> > >
> > > So all you need to do to get a working userlevel config is to change
> > > the second column of the $ifs array to 0 and set the $local_host to
> > > something like "Print(toh) -> Discard", and whoalla you have a working
> > > userlevel IP router config. Obviously you have to also edit the $ifs array
> > > entries to suit your router.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Ah! Thanks! I noticed the "no poll devices" error message when trying to
> > use this script, so I switched those. I should have read the file more in
> > depth.
> >
> > Secondly, what are my losses for running in user mode? I had assumed the
> > > >
> > > > main loss would be efficiency, but some elements seem to require
> > > > kernel
> > > > mode. Is this set in stone, or simply the default behavior?
> > >
> > >
> > > Your main loss will be performance and NOT functionality. Also SMP
> > > click is only supported in the kernel module.
> > >
> > > I would say MOST features are available across both userlevel Click
> > > and kernel module Click.
> > > There are some kernel only and userlevel only elements that provide
> > > the same "feature" in both modes i.e. there's a kernel FromDevice
> > > element as well as a userlevel FromDevice element.
> > > Then obviously there are some elements that will only be available in
> > > userlevel, typically elements that require floating point operation or file
> > > access that is not supported in the kernel ie FromDump, and some only
> > > available in kernel module i.e. PollDevice that require kernel level
> > > access to devices etc.
> > >
> > > If you have a look at http://read.cs.ucla.edu/click/elements you'll
> > > see that the vast majority of features is provided across both modes.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Nice, so the "drivers" column is the level it can be used at. This will
> > help me a lot. Thanks.
> >
> > Hope this helps.
> > >
> >
> >
> > It did, thanks a ton!
> >
> > Beyers Cronje
> > >
> > >
> >
>